Article published in:
Morphology and its interfaces: Syntax, semantics and the lexicon
Edited by Dany Amiot, Delphine Tribout, Natalia Grabar, Cédric Patin and Fayssal Tayalati
[Lingvisticæ Investigationes 37:2] 2014
► pp. 275289
References

References

Barz, I.
(1998) Zur Lexikalisierungspotenz nominalisierter Infinitive. In I. Barz, & G. Öhlschläger (Eds.), Zwischen Grammatik und Lexikon (pp. 57–68). Tübingen: Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Booij, G. E.
(2002) Constructional idioms, morphology, and the Dutch lexicon. Journal of Germanic Linguistics, 14, 301–327. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2010) Construction morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Croft, W.
(2001) Radical Construction Grammar. Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Demske, U.
(2000) Zur Geschichte der ung-Nominalisierung im Deutschen. Ein Wandel morphologischer Produktivität. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur, 122, 365–411. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dressler, W. U.
(1987) Word-formation (WF) as part of natural morphology. In W. U. Dressler (Ed.), Leitmotifs in natural morphology (pp. 99–125). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Durrell, M., Ensslin, A., & Bennett, P.
(2007) The GerManC Project. Sprache und Datenverarbeitung, 31, 71–80.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E.
(2006) Constructions at work. The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hartmann, S.
forthcoming) “Nominalization” taken literally. A diachronic corpus study of German nominalization patterns. To appear in: Italian Journal of Linguistics, Special Issue “New Territories in Word-Formation”.
Hilpert, M.
(2014) Construction Grammar and its application to english. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Hilpert, M., & Gries, S. T.
(2009) Assessing frequency changes in multistage diachronic corpora. Applications for historical corpus linguistics and the study of language acquisition. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 24, 385–401. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hollmann, W. B.
(2013) Nouns and verbs in Cognitive Grammar. Where is the ‘sound’ evidence? Cognitive Linguistics, 24, 275–308. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Howell, D. C.
(2010) Statistical methods for psychology (7th ed.). Belmont: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
Kastovsky, D.
(1986) Diachronic word-formation in a functional perspective. In D. Kastovsky, & A. Szwedek (Eds.), Linguistics across historical and geographical boundaries. vol. 1: Linguistic theory and historical linguistics (pp. 409–421). Berlin, New York: De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W.
(1987) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 1. Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(1991) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 2. Descriptive application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(2008) Cognitive Grammar. A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nübling, D., Dammel, A., Duke, J., & Szczepaniak, R.
(2013) Historische Sprachwissenschaft des Deutschen. Eine Einführung in die Prinzipien des Sprachwandels (4th ed.). Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Vogel, P. M.
(1996) Wortarten und Wortartenwechsel. Zur Konversion und verwandten Erscheinungen im Deutschen und in anderen Sprachen. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Scherer, C.
(2006) Was ist Wortbildungswandel? Linguistische Berichte, 205, 3–28.Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A., & Gries, S. T.
(2003) Collostructions. Investigating the interaction of words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 8, 209–243. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, J. R.
(2002) Cognitive Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Thielmann, W.
(2007) Substantiv. In L. Hoffmann (Ed.), Handbuch der deutschen Wortarten (pp. 791–822). Berlin, New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C., & Trousdale, G.
(2013) Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Werner, M.
(2012) Genus, Derivation und Quantifikation. Zur Funktion der Suffigierung und verwandter Phänomene im Deutschen. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar